My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024_0220_PWETC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
202x
>
2024
>
2024_0220_PWETC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 2:50:38 PM
Creation date
2/21/2024 2:49:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/20/2024
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
76 5. Street Name Policy Draft <br />77 Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer explained the City received a request <br />78 from residents to change the street name of the segment of County Road B West to <br />79 Cleveland Avenue. This portion is scheduled for reconstruction in 2025. <br />80 <br />81 Chair Ficek was not sure there is a real solution to what the City Council calls the <br />82 circular motion where the residents come up with a street name and the City is ok <br />83 with it and it goes to the County who may decide it is not a good name and then it <br />84 comes back to the City for further discussion and approvals. He thought if it comes <br />85 to that the City would need to deal with it then. <br />86 <br />87 Ms. Lowry did not think the County had a formal process for this so she did not <br />88 think it would be really hard and she did not see this coming up a lot. <br />89 <br />90 Member Fergus wondered if the wording could be changed from "The petition must <br />91 include the new name requested", it could say "The petition must suggest a new <br />92 name". The petitioners would not be signing a petition that states the road will be <br />93 named "X", so it is easier to negotiate with the County on a name. <br />94 <br />95 Ms. Lowry was not sur*hat the City Attorney said about the signatures, but she <br />96 did not think they are legally required. She thought it was just to get the buy in. <br />97 <br />98 Mr. Freihammer agreed and explained it is more or less to demonstrate that there is <br />99 support. He did not think there is a perfect process for this. <br />100 <br />101 Member Luongo thought this policy was aimed more for individual homeowners <br />102 but renaming a street could also affect people living in apartments so she was not <br />103 sure if they should put in the policy to acknowledge people who live on the street <br />104 versus people who own the property. <br />105 <br />106 Ms. Lowry explained staff did talk through that with the City Engineer and left it <br />107 as property owners and there was a reason for that, but she was not sure about the <br />108 reason. <br />109 <br />110 Mr. Freihammer thought legally for a petition the person has to be a property owner <br />111 but certainly the notification can notify the people in an apartment building so those <br />112 people can talk to the building owner or come to a meeting to voice their concerns. <br />113 He thought the wording in section D to read "All property owners and tenants <br />114 within one thousand feet will be notified..." He noted the tenants would not be a <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />Page 5 of 71 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.